Mill's On Liberty was published in 1859, the same year that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published. It remains one of the strongest treatises ever written in defense of liberalism. The entire work is a defense of the rights of the individual against the rights of the state to impose unlimited controls, as well as the individual's right to be protected from the actions of any other individual. According to Mill one is and should be free to do what they want, if and only if, it does not harm or impede the expression of any other person. Mill also addresses extensively the problem of tyranny of majority within democracies in this work. At the time of its release it was viewed as being extremely radical because of how it called for the moral and economic freedom of individuals from the state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty(was it? Can you give a link or reference? I don't really see this in your sources below - xmarquez Oct 29, 2006). In On Liberty, Mill develops his famous “harm principle” argument, and defends free speech with a great amount of passion. Being such an enormously influential work, the principles laid out in On Liberty remain the basis for much political thought since.
On Liberty discusses the idea of civil, or social, liberty, or “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” This struggle, between Liberty and Authority, has been present throughout history, claims Mill, but has generally taken the form of conflicts between subjects and their governments. With few exceptions, the relationship between political rulers and their people were assumed to be antagonistic, requiring the work of “patriots” who aimed to set limits, referred to as liberties, to the ruler, as well as create checks in the government in order to protect the weak of society.
Eventually, this progressed into the idea that rulers should no longer be antagonistic, but instead represent the interests of those that they rule. From this, the public demanded “elective and temporary rulers.” Under this line of thinking, protection of the people from their rulers was not necessary, as rulers were responsible to the people, and any type of oppression could be fixed by electing a new leader. According to Mill, this is an incorrect notion, as those “who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised…The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people.” Because of this “tyranny of the majority”, Mill says limitations on power are generally still accepted as necessary.
Unlike most accounts of liberty until his time, Mill goes beyond the tyranny of the majority in government. While governments in the more democratic model which Mill discusses need to have their power controlled, Mill claims “society can and does execute its own mandates: "and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right…it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since…it leaves fewer means of escape.” Here, Mill seems to be claiming that society mandates certain actions for its members even if it is not distinctly a violation of a law. For instance, society may expect its members to dress in a suit and tie everyday for work. Failure to do so generally results in being fired and downgraded on a social hierarchy. While none of this is mandated by law, society itself determines rules like this. Because of this power that society has, there needs to be “protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent form them.”
This leaves a major question, Mill admits, which he attempts to answer in the rest of the essay, as to where exactly to draw the line between individual independence and social control. Some laws are necessary to keep sound operation of a society, but what exactly these rules are has defined much of human history for Mill. Although this can seem easy at times, Mill attributes most of what people find so obvious in this regard simply as custom. Instead of simply setting this rules based on a ruler’s personal preference (is it simply "a ruler's" preference? Isn't Mill thinking of something broader here, like the preferences of the majority - xmarquez Oct 11, 2006), Mill says that “a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person’s preference” and cannot stand.
It is here that Mill puts forward his principle for where to draw the line, saying that “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.” Protecting a member of society for their own good is not sufficient, but only when they present a harm to others in the society. To derive this principle, Mill turns to his utilitarian roots, saying that utility is the ultimate philosophical goal of everything in the end. As a result, people should be able to attain their own personal height of happiness without interference from any other person or group.
Thus far, Mill does not go into great detail as to what it means to harm another person in society. For instance, an action that could be found extremely offensive to other members of the society, but not cause any physical harm, may or may not be considered harm under this principle. Likewise, if harm is caused, indirectly or unintentionally, it is not entirely clear what Mill would say.
Mill fears the tendency in modern society is the exact opposite of his principle. Instead, society has attempted to move towards more conformity as a whole, pressuring members of society into actions that may be against their own personal utility. As polities have grown in size, and as the separation between “spiritual and temporal authorities” has increased, repression has increased in social aspects as much as it has retreated in political aspects. The spiritual authorities are those mostly having to do with religion and spirituality, and temporal authorities are ones dealing with the present, with more tangible issues. What Mill is pointing out is that increasingly we see "the direction of men's consciences in other hands than those which controlled their worldly affairs"; that is, people's daily lives are being controlled by authorities who are more concerned with their spiritual lives, such as ensuring passage to heaven, etc. and not by leaders dealing with more "practical", day-to-day issues, which it appears Mills thinks more people are interested in. This separation then in a way may lead to a divergence from self-determination, which is definitely not what we want. (This last paragraph is on the right track, but I don't think it's quite right. - xmarquez Oct 11, 2006)
Chapter 2: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
In Chapter II, Mill focuses on whether or not individuals, either on their own or through government, should be able to limit others’ expressions of opinions. Mill does not believe one’s opinion should ever be silenced even if it is unpopular. The stifling of opinions, according to Mill, robs the current generation and the future in addition to doing a disservice to those who disagree with the opinions.
Humanity is hurt by the silencing of opinions for a few reasons. First and foremost, a given opinion may be true. Human beings are not infallible and who is anyone to say that something is true or false with absolute certainty. The confidence that people have in their own rightness is not justified and is dangerous to liberal ideals.
His second argument is that even if the popular opinion is true, it will become "dead dogma.” If it is not debated. Dissent, keeps alive the truth against which it dissents even if the dissent itself has little merit. Since all individuals are responsible for their choices, they must be aware of different opinions and keep an open mind.
Mill’s third argument addresses the value of freedom of thought and discussion. If a true opinion is not debated, the meaning of the opinion itself may be lost. This can be seen in the history of ethical and religious beliefs--when they are no longer being challenged, they start to become irrelevant." people's beliefs are subsequently not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the values they claim to hold dear, and their misunderstanding can cause serious errors in judgment.
Mill’s fourth argument is quite unique- it asserts that in the case of conflicting opinions, the truth is somewhere between them. Instead of being true or false, the issue is a bit more grey. Dissenting or opinions can often reflect the partial truths not recognized in popular opinion, and are valuable for bringing attention to unforeseen pieces of wisdom. This idea is particularly relevant in politics, where differing opinions keep seem to keep opposing sides somewhere in the middle.
Chapter 3: Of Individuality as one of the Elements of Well Being
He begins by acknowledging the fact that at times, both speech and actions must be hindered for the safety of other people. Government operates in such a way as to assure that the actions of an individual (whether intentional or not) do not harm other people. Even opinions can become dangerous if they influence or motivate people to break the law.
Nevertheless, he devotes this section to affirming the value that spontaneity and non-conformity have on human progress. While he admits that many may not see their intrinsic worth, he defends their necessity. He quotes Wilhelm von Humboldt: “the ‘object’ towards which every human being should ceaselessly direct his effort…is the individuality in of power and developments that for this there are two requisites: ‘freedom and a variety of situations’ and that from the union of these arise ‘individual vigor and manifest destiny,’ which combine themselves into individuality’ (23 - On Liberty).
He agrees that both extremes – blind conformity and a complete rejection of tradition would be absurd; no one should be forced to live as a sheep, nor should ignore the standing wealth of knowledge that humans have acquired throughout history. Instead, he claims that we should build on the customs with which we have been raised in order to maturely form the mental capacity and distinguish our individuality. “Among the works of man which human life is rightly employed in perfecting and beautifying, the first in importance, surely, is man himself” (23 -On Liberty). He likens human nature to trees which have the same basic necessities, but simultaneously individual oddities depending on the type of tree, the location of the tree, and the conditions under which they grow.
He admits that desires and impulses are very much a part of human nature and are not in themselves evil. Nevertheless, they should be checked by a strongly formed conscience in order to control them and transform them into beneficial energies. “A person whose desires are his own – are the expression of his own nature, as it has been developed and modified by his own culture – is said to have a character” (24). In the beginning, humans experienced an excess of desires and preferences that was eventually tamed by laws and discipline. Now, the opposite has occurred – desires and preferences are under the close watch of censorship and nonconformity is shunned as a crime. Therefore, he advocates the cultivation of the self within the limits imposed by the rights of others.(This point is something that was being asked about in the discussion forum and above, end of the summary of chapter 1 - xmarquez Oct 11, 2006)
He briefly attacks the Calvinist religion. (expand? - xmarquez Oct 11, 2006)
He then praises originality as a valuable element to not only oneself, but to human affairs. “Nothing was ever yet done which some one was not the first to do” (26). The very progress of human society depends on people (geniuses) breaking out of the masses (which he deems as “collective mediocrity”) and finding better ways to live and approach the world. Furthermore, all people benefit by following the initiative set forth by these advances and open his eyes to nobler things. He again insists on the differences in personal necessities for developing as an individual.
Chapter IV: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual
Mill seeks to answer the question, "what then is the rightful limit to the sovereign of the individual over himself? Where does the authority of society begin?" He begins his response by asserting that every member of society owes a return for its benefit by completing two duties: not injuring the interests of another and bearing his share of the labor. Other than these two, people who have formed the proper mental capacities should have the freedom to develop their individuality. Society no longer has the right to interefere and tell them what is best. (Does this modify the harm principle as explained in the summary of chapter 1 above? Are there any differences? - xmarquez Oct 11, 2006)
However, he admits that it would be a great misunderstanding to suppose that the conduct of one person acting in their own interests does not interfere with those of other people - either directly or indirectly (such as the establishment of a bad example (could be clearer - xmarquez Oct 11, 2006). He claims that the consequences of this interference is dealt with in two ways: by imposing social judgment on him and by outright laws and punishments. The former consists of the disagreeable consequences experienced by the offender by acting a certain way - even if his actions concern only himself. The later is imposed in the form of actual law and retribution for its offense.
Study Questions
What does Mill mean by "harm"?
What is individuality?
Is the harm principle coherent?
According to Mill, is the government responsible for individuals? Or are individuals respnsible for the government?
Table of Contents
Background
Mill's On Liberty was published in 1859, the same year that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published. It remains one of the strongest treatises ever written in defense of liberalism. The entire work is a defense of the rights of the individual against the rights of the state to impose unlimited controls, as well as the individual's right to be protected from the actions of any other individual. According to Mill one is and should be free to do what they want, if and only if, it does not harm or impede the expression of any other person. Mill also addresses extensively the problem of tyranny of majority within democracies in this work. At the time of its release it was viewed as being extremely radical because of how it called for the moral and economic freedom of individuals from the state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty(was it? Can you give a link or reference? I don't really see this in your sources below -
http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/mill/liberty.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#Lif
Chapter 1
On Liberty discusses the idea of civil, or social, liberty, or “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” This struggle, between Liberty and Authority, has been present throughout history, claims Mill, but has generally taken the form of conflicts between subjects and their governments. With few exceptions, the relationship between political rulers and their people were assumed to be antagonistic, requiring the work of “patriots” who aimed to set limits, referred to as liberties, to the ruler, as well as create checks in the government in order to protect the weak of society.
Eventually, this progressed into the idea that rulers should no longer be antagonistic, but instead represent the interests of those that they rule. From this, the public demanded “elective and temporary rulers.” Under this line of thinking, protection of the people from their rulers was not necessary, as rulers were responsible to the people, and any type of oppression could be fixed by electing a new leader. According to Mill, this is an incorrect notion, as those “who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised…The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people.” Because of this “tyranny of the majority”, Mill says limitations on power are generally still accepted as necessary.
Unlike most accounts of liberty until his time, Mill goes beyond the tyranny of the majority in government. While governments in the more democratic model which Mill discusses need to have their power controlled, Mill claims “society can and does execute its own mandates: "and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right…it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since…it leaves fewer means of escape.” Here, Mill seems to be claiming that society mandates certain actions for its members even if it is not distinctly a violation of a law. For instance, society may expect its members to dress in a suit and tie everyday for work. Failure to do so generally results in being fired and downgraded on a social hierarchy. While none of this is mandated by law, society itself determines rules like this. Because of this power that society has, there needs to be “protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent form them.”
This leaves a major question, Mill admits, which he attempts to answer in the rest of the essay, as to where exactly to draw the line between individual independence and social control. Some laws are necessary to keep sound operation of a society, but what exactly these rules are has defined much of human history for Mill. Although this can seem easy at times, Mill attributes most of what people find so obvious in this regard simply as custom. Instead of simply setting this rules based on a ruler’s personal preference (is it simply "a ruler's" preference? Isn't Mill thinking of something broader here, like the preferences of the majority -
It is here that Mill puts forward his principle for where to draw the line, saying that “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.” Protecting a member of society for their own good is not sufficient, but only when they present a harm to others in the society. To derive this principle, Mill turns to his utilitarian roots, saying that utility is the ultimate philosophical goal of everything in the end. As a result, people should be able to attain their own personal height of happiness without interference from any other person or group.
Thus far, Mill does not go into great detail as to what it means to harm another person in society. For instance, an action that could be found extremely offensive to other members of the society, but not cause any physical harm, may or may not be considered harm under this principle. Likewise, if harm is caused, indirectly or unintentionally, it is not entirely clear what Mill would say.
Mill fears the tendency in modern society is the exact opposite of his principle. Instead, society has attempted to move towards more conformity as a whole, pressuring members of society into actions that may be against their own personal utility. As polities have grown in size, and as the separation between “spiritual and temporal authorities” has increased, repression has increased in social aspects as much as it has retreated in political aspects. The spiritual authorities are those mostly having to do with religion and spirituality, and temporal authorities are ones dealing with the present, with more tangible issues. What Mill is pointing out is that increasingly we see "the direction of men's consciences in other hands than those which controlled their worldly affairs"; that is, people's daily lives are being controlled by authorities who are more concerned with their spiritual lives, such as ensuring passage to heaven, etc. and not by leaders dealing with more "practical", day-to-day issues, which it appears Mills thinks more people are interested in. This separation then in a way may lead to a divergence from self-determination, which is definitely not what we want. (This last paragraph is on the right track, but I don't think it's quite right. -
Chapter 2: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
In Chapter II, Mill focuses on whether or not individuals, either on their own or through government, should be able to limit others’ expressions of opinions. Mill does not believe one’s opinion should ever be silenced even if it is unpopular. The stifling of opinions, according to Mill, robs the current generation and the future in addition to doing a disservice to those who disagree with the opinions.
Humanity is hurt by the silencing of opinions for a few reasons. First and foremost, a given opinion may be true. Human beings are not infallible and who is anyone to say that something is true or false with absolute certainty. The confidence that people have in their own rightness is not justified and is dangerous to liberal ideals.
His second argument is that even if the popular opinion is true, it will become "dead dogma.” If it is not debated. Dissent, keeps alive the truth against which it dissents even if the dissent itself has little merit. Since all individuals are responsible for their choices, they must be aware of different opinions and keep an open mind.
Mill’s third argument addresses the value of freedom of thought and discussion. If a true opinion is not debated, the meaning of the opinion itself may be lost. This can be seen in the history of ethical and religious beliefs--when they are no longer being challenged, they start to become irrelevant." people's beliefs are subsequently not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the values they claim to hold dear, and their misunderstanding can cause serious errors in judgment.
Mill’s fourth argument is quite unique- it asserts that in the case of conflicting opinions, the truth is somewhere between them. Instead of being true or false, the issue is a bit more grey. Dissenting or opinions can often reflect the partial truths not recognized in popular opinion, and are valuable for bringing attention to unforeseen pieces of wisdom. This idea is particularly relevant in politics, where differing opinions keep seem to keep opposing sides somewhere in the middle.
Chapter 3: Of Individuality as one of the Elements of Well Being
He begins by acknowledging the fact that at times, both speech and actions must be hindered for the safety of other people. Government operates in such a way as to assure that the actions of an individual (whether intentional or not) do not harm other people. Even opinions can become dangerous if they influence or motivate people to break the law.Nevertheless, he devotes this section to affirming the value that spontaneity and non-conformity have on human progress. While he admits that many may not see their intrinsic worth, he defends their necessity. He quotes Wilhelm von Humboldt: “the ‘object’ towards which every human being should ceaselessly direct his effort…is the individuality in of power and developments that for this there are two requisites: ‘freedom and a variety of situations’ and that from the union of these arise ‘individual vigor and manifest destiny,’ which combine themselves into individuality’ (23 - On Liberty).
He agrees that both extremes – blind conformity and a complete rejection of tradition would be absurd; no one should be forced to live as a sheep, nor should ignore the standing wealth of knowledge that humans have acquired throughout history. Instead, he claims that we should build on the customs with which we have been raised in order to maturely form the mental capacity and distinguish our individuality. “Among the works of man which human life is rightly employed in perfecting and beautifying, the first in importance, surely, is man himself” (23 - On Liberty). He likens human nature to trees which have the same basic necessities, but simultaneously individual oddities depending on the type of tree, the location of the tree, and the conditions under which they grow.
He admits that desires and impulses are very much a part of human nature and are not in themselves evil. Nevertheless, they should be checked by a strongly formed conscience in order to control them and transform them into beneficial energies. “A person whose desires are his own – are the expression of his own nature, as it has been developed and modified by his own culture – is said to have a character” (24). In the beginning, humans experienced an excess of desires and preferences that was eventually tamed by laws and discipline. Now, the opposite has occurred – desires and preferences are under the close watch of censorship and nonconformity is shunned as a crime. Therefore, he advocates the cultivation of the self within the limits imposed by the rights of others.(This point is something that was being asked about in the discussion forum and above, end of the summary of chapter 1 -
He briefly attacks the Calvinist religion. (expand? -
He then praises originality as a valuable element to not only oneself, but to human affairs. “Nothing was ever yet done which some one was not the first to do” (26). The very progress of human society depends on people (geniuses) breaking out of the masses (which he deems as “collective mediocrity”) and finding better ways to live and approach the world. Furthermore, all people benefit by following the initiative set forth by these advances and open his eyes to nobler things. He again insists on the differences in personal necessities for developing as an individual.
Chapter IV: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual
Mill seeks to answer the question, "what then is the rightful limit to the sovereign of the individual over himself? Where does the authority of society begin?" He begins his response by asserting that every member of society owes a return for its benefit by completing two duties: not injuring the interests of another and bearing his share of the labor. Other than these two, people who have formed the proper mental capacities should have the freedom to develop their individuality. Society no longer has the right to interefere and tell them what is best. (Does this modify the harm principle as explained in the summary of chapter 1 above? Are there any differences? -
However, he admits that it would be a great misunderstanding to suppose that the conduct of one person acting in their own interests does not interfere with those of other people - either directly or indirectly (such as the establishment of a bad example (could be clearer -
Study Questions
- What does Mill mean by "harm"?
- What is individuality?
- Is the harm principle coherent?
- According to Mill, is the government responsible for individuals? Or are individuals respnsible for the government?
>